Skip to main content

Picture courtesy of Reganosa

8 Russia Methane Supply Disruption

This chapter considers the disruption of all gas imports from Russia affecting all the routes to the EU, including direct routes to Germany, Baltic states and Finland, and all the transits though Belarus, Ukraine and Turkey. Only Russian flows to Serbia and North Macedonia are considered.

8.1 Yearly Demand

As a consequence of the minimisation of Russian gas in the Reference case, Distributed Energy and Global Ambition scenarios show no need for Russian gas in 2030 and 2040, for this reason the results in these cases remain unchanged compared to Reference case.

The infrastructure assessment is limited to Best Estimate and National Trends ­scenarios in 2030 and 2040.

8.1.1 Methane Results

In contrast to Reference case results, with no disruptions, without Russian gas the simulations show many countries are exposed to methane demand curtailment for average winters in Best Estimate and National Trends scenarios, in both H₂ infrastructure levels, but no impact in Distributed Energy and Global Ambition.

These two scenarios only show minor differences compared to reference case results in a few cases of in 2050.

8.1.1.1 Existing Methane Infrastructure level
  • 2025 – Best Estimate
H₂ Infrastructure Level 1

Without Russian gas in 2025 Best Estimate ­Scenario many countries show risk of demand ­curtailment. The higher values are observed in Austria, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Croatia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovenia and Slovakia with a potential curtailment of 11 %. Germany and Switzerland show 8 %, Italy 7 %, Finland 6 % and Greece only 2 %.

Two significant groups of bottlenecks are noted from west to east: the first starts from The Netherlands, Belgium and France to eastern neighbouring countries and the second one comprises Germany, Switzerland and Italy, also to the east. Three more bottlenecks are observed from Greece to Bulgaria, Lithuania to Poland and Estonia to Finland.

H₂ Infrastructure Level 2

If more methane is used to produce more hydrogen, then the curtailment in the methane side increases to 2–3 % in all Europe, reducing some of the bottlenecks. One of the two main infrastructure limitations remain, this is the one from Germany, Switzerland and Italy to the east. Bottlenecks from Greece to Bulgaria and from Lithuania to Poland also continue.

  • 2030 – National Trends
H₂ Infrastructure Level 1

Demand curtailment occurs in all Europe. The ­biggest curtailments occur in Austria, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Croatia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovenia and Slovakia with a 29 % rate. Germany shows 20 %, Sweden 10 %, Denmark 9 %, Switzerland 9 %, Italy 6 %, Greece 5 % and all the rest 3–4 %.

Therefore, bottlenecks are observed from The Netherlands, Belgium, France, Switzerland and Italy to their eastern neighbouring countries and also from Denmark to Germany and from Germany to the east. Other bottlenecks are observed from Greece to Bulgaria and Lithuania to Poland.

H₂ Infrastructure Level 2

When allowing more hydrogen production with methane, Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania increase their CH₄ curtailment to 30 %, Germany to 21 %, Sweden to 11 %, Denmark to 10 %, Switzerland to 10 %, Italy to 10 %, and all the rest to 8-9 %. ­Bottlenecks remain.

  • 2040 – National Trends
H₂ Infrastructure Level 1

In 2040 National Trends under H₂ Level 1 without Russian gas a 41 % demand curtailment is observed in Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania. Austria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Croatia, Poland, Sweden, Slovenia and Slovakia present a 16 % curtailment rate.

Bottlenecks are observed from The Netherlands, Belgium, France, Switzerland and Italy to their eastern neighbouring countries and from Germany to Denmark and also to the east.

Other bottlenecks are observed are from Greece to Bulgaria, Lithuania to Poland and also from central Europe to Hungary.

H₂ Infrastructure Level 2

If more hydrogen production from methane is allowed, then Germany raises its curtailment rate to 10 % and all the other countries in Europe show new curtailments of 3–4 %.

SAR fig 051 legende

Figure 8.1: RU CH₄ Supply Disruption – Methane Results for Yearly Demand in Existing CH₄ Infrastructure and H₂ Levels 1 and 2

8.1.1.2 Advanced and PCI Methane Infrastructure
  • 2025 – Best Estimate
H₂ Infrastructure Level 1

PCI infrastructure reduces demand curtailment observed in Existing infrastructure from 11 % to 5 % in Austria, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Croatia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovenia and Slovakia. Germany and Finland reduce curtailment to 4 %, Italy and Switzerland to 3 % and all the rest to 1 % or less (in Spain and United Kingdom).

Infrastructure limitations are reduced but still occur in PCI infrastructure, in similar places to the ones described in Existing infrastructure, first from The Netherlands, Belgium and France to the east and second from Germany, Switzerland and Italy, also to the east. The bottlenecks from Greece to ­Bulgaria, Lithuania to Poland and Estonia to Finland also remain.

Advanced infrastructure reduces demand curtailment to 0–1 % and mitigates all bottlenecks.

H₂ Infrastructure Level 2

When combining PCI infrastructure and H₂ Level 2 demand curtailment increases slightly in all countries and results show a range of 3–6 % curtailment with only one bottleneck remaining between Greece and Bulgaria, all the other countries are able to reduce their difference with neighbours to less than 1 %.

In the case of Advanced infrastructure, H₂ Level 2 shows a demand curtailment range in all Europe of 2–3 % and no bottlenecks at all.

  • 2030 – National Trends
H₂ Infrastructure Level 1

National trends demand in 2030 is curtailed everywhere even with PCI infrastructure. Results show a 21 % curtailment in Austria, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Croatia, Hungary, Romania, Slovenia and Slovakia. Germany stands alone with a 15 % demand curtailment and all the rest share an 8 % curtailment. In this case a new bottleneck appears from Poland to the south.

Advanced infrastructure shows a demand curtailment range in 2030 of 10–11 % for H₂ Level 1 and no infrastructure limitations.

H₂ Infrastructure Level 2

PCI infrastructure shows a higher demand curtailment with H₂ Level 2 for Germany, increasing from 15 to 17 % and also the rest of Europe increasing from 8 to 11 – 12 %.

In 2030 Advanced infrastructure H₂ Level 2 shows a demand curtailment range in all Europe of 13–14 % without any bottlenecks.

  • 2040 – National Trends
H₂ Infrastructure Level 1

PCI infrastructure in 2040 only presents 3 countries with a 25–26 % range of methane demand curtailment, Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania with infrastructure limitations to Hungary and Bulgaria.

Advanced infrastructure shows no demand curtailment with H₂ Level 1.

H₂ Infrastructure Level 2

PCI infrastructure shows the same results than in Level 1 plus an additional demand curtailment of 6 % across Europe.

In 2040 Advanced infrastructure H₂ Level 2 shows a demand curtailment range in all Europe of 6–7 % without any bottlenecks.

SAR fig 052a legende

Figure 8.2: RU CH₄ Supply Disruption – Methane Results for Yearly Demand in PCI & Advanced CH₄ Infrastructure and H₂ Level 1 and 2

SAR fig 052b legende

Figure 8.3: RU CH₄ Supply Disruption – Methane Results for Yearly Demand in PCI & Advanced CH₄ Infrastructure and H₂ Level 1 and 2

8.1.2 Hydrogen Results

Results for hydrogen in H₂ Level 1 show the same demand curtailment in all scenarios and all CH₄ levels (Existing, Advanced and PCI) than in Reference case.

Results in H₂ Level 2 are different and, in this case, they also present a small Hydrogen demand curtailment in Best Estimate and National Trends for all CH₄ levels. No curtailments occur with H₂ Level 2 in Distributed Energy and Global Ambition scenarios.

8.1.2.1 Existing Methane Infrastructure
  • 2025 – Best Estimate
H₂ Infrastructure Level 2

In Best Estimate scenario, all the countries with hydrogen demand values are curtailed. Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania, Serbia, Slovenia and Slovakia reach 13 % of curtailment, all the other countries show 6 % or less. Hydrogen production is not enough to satisfy demand, as in 2025 there is no H₂ infrastructure between countries where are no bottelnecks.

  • 2030
H₂ Infrastructure Level 2

In National Trends scenario all countries with hydrogen demand show demand curtailment. The hydrogen infrastructure for 2030 allows countries with H₂ interconnections to share a 9 % of demand curtailment. Only Serbia and Slovenia reach 29 %. No bottlenecks are observed.

  • 2040
H₂ Infrastructure Level 2

In 2040 all countries show a 3 % demand curtailment in National Trends scenario.

SAR fig 053 legende

Figure 8.4: RU CH₄ Supply Disruption – Hydrogen Results for Yearly Demand in Existing CH₄ Infrastructure and H₂ Level 1 and 2

8.1.2.2 Advanced and PCI Methane Infrastructure
  • 2025 – Best Estimate
H₂ Infrastructure Level 2

PCI Infrastructure also shows that all the countries with hydrogen demand are curtailed. Belgium, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Latvia, The Netherlands, Hungary, Romania, Serbia, Slovenia and Slovakia keep a 7–8 % of curtailment. United Kingdom, Germany and Spain only 3–4 %.

Advanced Infrastructure in 2025 would already help to slightly reduce curtailment by 1–2 % in all the countries considering H₂ Level 2 allows hydrogen production with hydrogen.

  • 2030
H₂ Infrastructure Level 2

PCI Infrastructure results show countries with hydrogen infrastructure in 2030 share a 11 % demand curtailment. Luxemburg reaches 12 %, Serbia 21 % and Slovenia 20 %.

Advanced Infrastructure in 2030 allows all the countries with demand to share a 13 % hydrogen curtailment.

  • 2040
H₂ Infrastructure Level 2

PCI Infrastructure results show that all countries with hydrogen demand have a 5–6 % curtailment without any bottlenecks.

Advanced Infrastructure in 2040 allows all the countries with demand to share a 6 % hydrogen curtailment without infrastructure limitations.

SAR fig 054a legende

Figure 8.5: RU CH₄ Supply Disruption – Hydrogen Results for Yearly Demand in PCI & Advanced CH₄ Infrastructure and H₂ Level 1 + 2

SAR fig 054b legende

Figure 8.6: RU CH₄ Supply Disruption – Hydrogen Results for Yearly Demand in PCI & Advanced CH₄ Infrastructure and H₂ Level 1 + 2

8.2 2-Week Cold Spell Demand

8.2.1 Methane Results

Bosnia and Herzegovina always shows the same methane demand curtailment than in the Reference Case.

8.2.1.1 Existing Methane Infrastructure
  • 2025 – Best Estimate scenario
H₂ Infrastructure Level 1

Only Greece shows an additional 14 % of demand curtailment due to infrastructure limitations.

H₂ Infrastructure Level 2

In No Russia H₂ Level 2 also Finland presents a 7 % extra demand curtailment.

  • 2030
H₂ Infrastructure Level 1

In 2030 Greece shows an extra 5 % curtailment rate due to infrastructure limitations. All the other countries are having 1 % or less curtailment.

H₂ Infrastructure Level 2

In addition to Reference, H₂ Level 2 shows an additional demand curtailment of 4 % in Bulgaria, Estonia, Finland, Lithuania, Latvia and Romania.

  • 2040
H₂ Infrastructure Level 1

In this case 2 week demand plus infrastructure limitations cause a demand curtailment of 18 % in Poland, 14 % in Bulgaria and Romania and 6 % in Greece and Croatia.

H₂ Infrastructure Level 2

Demand curtailment increase to 23 % in Poland, 22 % in Bulgaria and Romania and stays in 6 % for Greece and Croatia. Luxemburg shows the same 21 % curtailment in H₂ Level 2 than in the Reference case.

SAR fig 055 legende

Figure 8.7: RU CH₄ Supply Disruption – Methane Results for 2W Demand in Existing CH₄ Infrastructure and H₂ Level 1 and 2

8.2.1.2 Advanced and PCI Methane Infrastructure

The situation improves in the east with both Advanced and PCI Infrastructure compared to Existing. Poland is even mitigating the curtailment rate observed in the Reference case due to the 50 % of storage level and the enhanced capacities from west to east used in the No Russian gas simulation.

  • 2025 – Best Estimate
H₂ Infrastructure Level 1

With PCI and Advanced infrastructure levels results are the same as the Reference case, Bosnia and Herzegovina shows the same risk of demand curtailment.

H₂ Infrastructure Level 2

Finland shows an additional curtailment of 7 % under the H₂ Level 2 in both PCI and Advanced.

  • 2030
H₂ Infrastructure Level 1

In 2030, PCI and Advanced infrastructure results are the same as those of Reference case.

H₂ Infrastructure Level 2

In 2030, PCI and Advanced infrastructure results are the same as those of Reference case.

  • 2040
H₂ Infrastructure Level 1

Only Macedonia shows 21 % demand curtailment in PCI infrastructure and only Luxemburg shows 23 % demand curtailment in Advanced.

H₂ Infrastructure Level 2

Additional to Macedonia, in PCI with H₂ Level 2 also Luxemburg shows 21 % of demand curtailment. Advanced infrastructure remains unchanged.

SAR fig 056a legende

Figure 8.8a: RU CH₄ Supply Disruption – Methane Results for 2W Demand in PCI & Advanced CH₄ Infrastructure and H₂ Level 1 and 2

SAR fig 056b legende

Figure 8.8b: RU CH₄ Supply Disruption – Methane Results for 2W Demand in PCI & Advanced CH₄ Infrastructure and H₂ Level 1 and 2

8.2.2 Hydrogen Results

8.2.2.1 Existing Methane Infrastructure

With Existing infrastructure H₂ Level 1 and Level 2 all hydrogen demand curtailment results remain unchanged compared to the ones described in Reference case for 2 week cold spell demand in methane existing infrastructure.

SAR fig 057 legende

Figure 8.9: RU CH₄ Supply Disruption – Hydrogen Results for 2W Demand in Existing CH₄ Infrastructure and H₂ Level 1 and 2

8.2.2.2 Advanced and PCI Methane Infrastructure

Both CH₄ PCI and CH₄ Advanced infrastructure together with H₂ levels 1 and 2 show that curtailment results remain unchanged compared to 2 week cold spell demand described in the Reference case.

SAR fig 058a legende

Figure 8.10a: Hydrogen Results for 2W Demand in PCI & Advanced CH₄ Infrastructure and H₂ Level 1 and 2

SAR fig 058b legende

Figure 8.10b: Hydrogen Results for 2W Demand in PCI & Advanced CH₄ Infrastructure and H₂ Level 1 and 2

8.3 2-Week Dunkelflaute demand

The 2-Week Dunkelflaute country demands are generally very similar to the 2-Week Cold Spell demand values. Hydrogen demand is the same for Best Estimate and National Trends scenarios and it is also the same in the year 2030 of Distributed Energy and Global Ambition scenarios. Regarding Distributed Energy and Global Ambition scenarios in 2040 and 2050, only Italy, The Netherlands, Romania and United Kingdom show higher values in 2-Week Dunkelflaute.

Regarding the methane demand values, only Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Germany, Croatia and Italy present slight differences when comparing demand of 2-Week Dunkelflaute with 2-Week Cold in Best Estimate and National trends scenarios.

In Distributed Energy and Global Ambition scenarios just Spain, France, Greece, Italy, The Netherlands, Portugal, Romania and United Kingdom present higher methane demand in 2-Week Dunkelflaute.

Consequently, the curtailment rate results in 2-Week Dunkelflaute and in 2-Week Cold Spell are exactly the same for most of the countries. The countries with higher demand in 2-Week Dunkelflaute are only increasing their demand curtailment rate in 1 or 2 % maximum.

8.4 Peak demand

8.4.1 Methane Results

8.4.1.1 Existing Methane Infrastructure
  • 2025 – Best Estimate
H₂ Infrastructure Level 1

For No Russia in Best Estimate scenario all the countries with curtailed demand in the Reference case show 2–3 % extra curtailment and Greece jumps from 7 to 28 % due to infrastructure limitations.

H₂ Infrastructure Level 2

In H₂ Level 2 all the countries with curtailed demand in the Reference case show 2-3 % extra curtailment, Greece behaves equal to H₂ Level 1 and additionally Austria shows a demand curtailment of 10 %.

  • 2030
H₂ Infrastructure Level 1

In 2030 Greece shows 28 % demand curtailment again. There are also many countries showing demand curtailment, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Germany, Ireland, Poland, Romania and Slovakia with 11-13 % and with 8-9 % those are Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Croatia, Hungary, Latonia, Luxemburg, Latvia, The Netherlands, Sweden, Slovenia and United Kingdom.

H₂ Infrastructure Level 2

Compared to H₂ Level 1, Level 2 shows an additional demand curtailment of 4 % in, Estonia, Finland, Lithuania, Latvia and Romania and 1 % change or less in the rest of the countries with curtailment.

  • 2040
H₂ Infrastructure Level 1

In National Trends 2040 without Russian gas only Bulgaria and Romania are showing new demand curtailment of 26 % and Greece of 18 %.

H₂ Infrastructure Level 2

In H₂ Level 2 shows new curtailments of 36 % in Luxemburg and 6 % in UK and other countries increasing to 32–33 % (Bulgaria, Poland and ­Romania).

SAR fig 059 legende

Figure 8.11: RU CH₄ Supply Disruption – Methane Results for Peak Demand in Existing CH₄ Infrastructure and H₂ Level 1 and 2

8.4.1.2 Advanced and PCI Methane Infrastructure
  • 2025 – Best Estimate
H₂ Infrastructure Level 1

PCI infrastructure allows all the countries with curtailment to reduce the figures to 3–4 %, except for Greece with 10 %.

With Advanced infrastructure only Greece shows an extra 3 % demand curtailment compared to the Reference case, much less than the 28 % reached with Existing infrastructure.

H₂ Infrastructure Level 2

PCI infrastructure with H₂ Level 2 increases demand curtailment in all countries by only 1 %, Greece remains with 10 %. Same result to H₂ Level 1 in Advance.

  • 2030
H₂ Infrastructure Level 1

PCI infrastructure in 2030 shows many countries with a new 3 % of demand curtailment: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Croatia, Hungary, Latonia, Luxemburg, Latvia, The Netherlands, Sweden, Slovenia, and Romania compared to Refence case results.

Poland and UK change their result to a 4 % of demand curtailment.

Advanced infrastructure shows exactly the same results as the ones from Reference case.

H₂ Infrastructure Level 2

PCI with H₂ Level 2 shows an additional demand curtailment of 4 % in Bulgaria, Estonia, Finland, Lithuania, Latvia and Romania.

Advanced infrastructure shows exactly the same results as the ones from Reference case.

  • 2040
H₂ Infrastructure Level 1

In Advance infrastructure only Poland shows a different demand curtailment raising from 9 % in Reference to 17 % in No Russia.

H₂ Infrastructure Level 2

In both PCI and Advanced Infrastructure there are new curtailments of 36 % in Luxemburg and 6 % in UK compared to Level 1.

SAR fig 060a legende

Figure 8.12a: RU CH₄ Supply Disruption – Methane Results for Peak Demand in PCI & Advanced CH₄ Infrastructure and H₂ Level 1 and 2

SAR fig 060b legende

Figure 8.12b: RU CH₄ Supply Disruption – Methane Results for Peak Demand in PCI & Advanced CH₄ Infrastructure and H₂ Level 1 and 2

8.4.2 Hydrogen Results

8.4.2.1 Existing Methane Infrastructure

CH₄ Existing infrastructure results show that H₂ demand curtailment remains unchanged compared to the Reference case results in all years of both H₂ levels 1.

SAR fig 061 legende

Figure 8.13: RU CH₄ Supply Disruption – Hydrogen Results for Peak Demand in Existing CH₄ Infrastructure and H₂ Level 1 and 2

8.4.2.2 Advanced and PCI Methane Infrastructure

PCI and Advanced infrastructure show in both H₂ levels that curtailment results remain unchanged compared to the ones for peak demand in the Reference case.

SAR fig 062a legende

Figure 8.14a: RU CH₄ Supply Disruption – Methane Results for Peak Demand in PCI & Advanced CH₄ Infrastructure and H₂ Level 1 and 2

SAR fig 062b legende

Figure 8.14b: RU CH₄ Supply Disruption – Methane Results for Peak Demand in PCI & Advanced CH₄ Infrastructure and H₂ Level 1 and 2

Close Menu